NATO, a “threat” to peace in Europe? A military alliance that has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan in recent years? After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, particularly viral social media posts suggest some kind of ambiguity on the part of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) that will not be as peaceful as it claims. The arguments are close to those of Vladimir Putin.
To answer various claims about this alliance, which was formed in 1949, we interviewed Olivier Kempf, Associate Fellow at the Strategic Research Foundation.
With the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, NATO’s role is being questioned by some internet users who see the organization as going beyond its defensive role, accusing it of “dominating” some countries. What is his real role and how far can he go defensively?
NATO’s first traditional mission, which it still carries out, is the collective defense of allies and their borders. This is also what is currently happening, with the system being strengthened in Poland, the Baltic States and even in Romania. It’s not for attack, it’s for defense.
Its second mission, dating back to the post-Cold War era, was to promote peace and stability in the world in support of societies in disorder, in conflict, or in real need of an outside force to restore their stability. NATO conducts these operations, both defensive and offensive, with the approval of the United Nations or at the behest of future governments. For some peacekeeping missions such as Afghanistan [où les talibans ont repris le pouvoir quelques semaines après le retrait des forces occidentales], of course, we may be disappointed, but it cannot be said that NATO is an instrument of domination. This argument is redundant.
Several publications blame NATO for the deaths of more than 200,000 people in Syria, where it has not yet intervened, according to a list published on its website. Can we still say that NATO is “guilty for millions of deaths” in the countries where it has intervened?
It’s about military action. Losses among NATO soldiers are inevitable, as well as in the camp opposite. Operations inevitably lead to casualties. From there, to say that there were millions of deaths, no. Modern conflicts can be very bloody, but not millions. You must observe the measure of things.
Can we appreciate, as some social media detractors do, that NATO has already supported “rebels and separatists” in countries like Afghanistan, Libya or Serbia?
Several examples come to mind showing NATO’s support for already established powers. In Bosnia or Afghanistan, for example, she supported governments. In Kosovo, the consent of the parties involved was respected, which was confirmed by the UN. The only exception would be Libya, where NATO has effectively supported groups that rebelled against Muammar Gaddafi and whose provisional governments have been recognized by some Western powers.
That’s the whole legitimacy debate: you have legitimate governments losing their legitimacy, and it’s an ethical debate about whether NATO should get involved. But to say that NATO systematically supports the rebels would be untrue, and it doesn’t respect the facts.
Supporters of Vladimir Putin argue that one of the reasons for this conflict is NATO’s eastward expansion. How to explain the expansion of the organization after the end of World War II?
It was not the Atlantic Alliance that expanded, but the countries that asked to join it. NATO is not an international government that decides for the people. A number of Central and Eastern European countries have applied for membership. NATO has often wavered and has not always responded positively.
Can all countries really join NATO?
No, you must be part of the European zone and share the values of NATO. Therefore, it is necessary to be a democratic state and, above all, not to have border problems with neighbors. This is the key point. There are also technical criteria such as upgradeability or compatibility. [des équipements de défense] but this is the second process.
On the set of C à vous on Monday, Adrien Quatennen (LFI) confirmed that “the United States did not need to bring Ukraine into NATO”…
It’s not about annexation: the Ukrainian government is asking to join NATO. We may consider it wrong, reckless or threatening European security, but we cannot call it “annexation”. This is not reality. In the current framework, Ukraine could not join NATO because of the border problem with Russia. She already made a request in 2008, which was already rejected.